tv Charlie Rose PBS November 29, 2011 11:00pm-12:00am EST
>> charlie: welcome to our program. tonight a look at occupy wall street with john heilemann of "new york" magazine and mattathias schwartz of the "new york" magazine. >> i think the first thing you would say is we're at the moment where this is not a moveme yet. it's a moment and it's been an incredible moment for two and-a-half months where 900 occupations have started up around the world. and they have injected the notion of quality of the national conversation in a way that it had not been as recently as september. but the transition from moment to movementf that does occur, that is where we are. if people thought they could get the change they wanted to in the system they wouldn't be cping ouall night much this is what people want to do when they want to opt out of the existing power structure which for is the elections because they feel like they're t going toet what they want that way >> charlie: we continue with marc benioff and a look where the technology revolution is
heading right now. >> the salesforce is a company that's really pioneered the cloud and the idea of the cloud is like amazon or e-bay or google. you know that because you foot consumer technologies. thiss to run your business. businees up to this point really have had to buy their own software and build their own data centers and hook it all up themselves. and our message is very simple. hey if you can buy a book on am saw, if you can do an option on e-bay or search on google you can run your business the same way. >> charlie: how wall street and technology and where they're heading next.
police department forcibly moved protesters from zuccotti park. several protesters attempted to shut down the new york stock exchange. they failed but demonstrations are across the country. sunday night occupiers in los angeles successfully faced police where they were order to do break down the camp. where the movement goes from here and is already part of the national conversation. two writers, john heilemann who wrote 12 equals 1968 and mattathias schwartz who wrote a history of occupy wall street in last week's new yorker magazine. i am pleased to have them both at this table. so where are we? tell me where this movement is. >> wow, that is a good question. you know i think we were, i think first of all if you talk to the people down there who i think of as they're not the leaders and they're very defiant about not being leaders and cast as lears but the core
organizers, i think the first thing they would say is we're at this moment where this is not a movement yet and it's a moment. and it's been an incredible moment for two and-a-half months where 900 occupations have started up around the world. and they have injected the notion of quality of the national conversation in a way that it had not been as recently as september. but the transition from moment to movement, if that does occur, that is where we are. and the question of how to try to translate the broad popular support for the critique that occupy wall street has proven, the autocracy. how do we hibernate for a few months and come back in a project politically powerful way in the spring. >> charlie: how will they do that. >> that is a very large question, i think. and you kn, we will require,
these are end game kindf questis in some sense. but i think they will need to d a kind of organizing that they had not done before. this will not be i think about occupying small pieces of turf around the country anymore, it will have to be about staging large scale events where they can demonstrate that there are not hundrs or thousands of peopleut tensf thousands in their minds least, eve hundreds of thousands of people who are on their side. so the are discussions about occupying the democratic or republican conventions. there's talk about occupying the mall which is the recollect section of the posthumous poor people's campaign in 1968. those the kind of things that will have to happen if this is something that hopes to effectuate large scale change and even homes to have real effect on the politics of the presidential election next year. >> charlie: coming t of 2008 in the economic collapse we had and what came after that. coming out of a huge sense of
hope for change out of the 2008 political campaignnd what resulted. was there a mood here waiting for somebody to do something that will be a lighting rod. >> yes. i think you make an excellent point. a lot of causes of this movent are structural and don't have to do with people. it's only a matter of time before someone came up with an idea like this. a few month ago, charles glow from the "new york times" published an interesting op ed where he listed economic conditions in the u.s. and compared them to tunisia. r employment's approaching that level. now our government is a lot more open and representative and we have represented democracy. he was really on to something this idea things can get so bad so long before you start to see people in the streets.
that's what we're starting to see now. >> charlie: has there been at the same time the notion of where is our arab spring. >> a lot of movers as john calls them have been over to the middle east and spent time in egypt. michael white from add busters who came up with the initial september 17th call. he's spent a lot of time in palestine and that was informative for him politically. i think you're seeing a sort of global pro test culture. >> in the spring a lot of people worked on that and how to do these occupations here. >> charlie: what is it that people want to happen? what is it? >> well you know, it's very,
there's a rich diversity, if you were willing to confine yourself the left. >> charlie: let me understand. i'm noasking where are the demands. >> yes. but even on the left, you know, there's a rich diversity of use. i tried to oversimplify. i think there are radically utopiaians and i put the capitalists and marxist and others who do not want to fix capitalism, do not want to fix our political system. they want something new. i don't know exactly what they want. they want to tear this system down they think it's corrupt and they want to build a new society. there are people sleeping in the few months at zuccotti park thought this was a model for a new kind of participatory democracy. there are another group who are radical still buthey're n
that unrecognizable from social democrats in europe currently. they believe in capitalism and they don't think capitalism should be torn out and representative democracy should go away but they want a more humanend equitable and just face and form of capitalism. they want to get a lot of the corruption of money in our politics out. they have various ideas about how to do those things but there's a radical reformism versus radical utopianism. i think if the movement is taken over largely by the radical yew taupians, it will dissipate into nothingness quickly. the radical reformers on the far left side of the spectrum who really do think we don't have demands right now but we need to have demands. we don't have organization to press those demands. course we're going to have the question when, not whether, how do we build our version. thee point to the civil rights movement and i is a this is where the movement eventually had its congress original quality in the southern christian learship conference and pressed for specific demand. they don't have those things yet
but we will need them eventually. >> i think the distinction you make is a good one. but everything i've seen in my reporting is that the folks who you're calling the radical utopians, they are the ones at the center of this. the people who self identify politically as anarchists are thones with the energy and the ideas. and ey're the ones who have gotten the movement to where it is right now. and so why are like all these social democrat folks and more mainstream folks adhering to them and tap into that energy. i think it's because some of their articles bear some listening to. one thing we could talk b like when we talk about capitalism, what exactly do we mean. i think everyone can agree that li private property is a good thing and we should be able to put our money inhe bank and save it there and borrow money to like buy a house. but looking at what's happened since 2008 and looking where the volume of trades on the major stock exchanges are coming from, is that really what capitalism
is about anymore. or has capitalism become something else. so i think the distinction that john's making and division betwn the two groups there's emerging between people who want to make demands now copy pull who want to say things that may seem crazy but have the potential to sort of change the publiconsciousness in a way that might make larger demands possibly later. it's a question of timing. >> charlie: is the energy now about how to organize rather than some great debate about ideas. >> the first thing people in the movement have to figure out is where the conversation has to take place. zuccotti park is gon new york isn't the center of it anymore so i think people ar still really like do it happen on the internet, will there be some kind of national convention. will there be these national protests. >> charlie: these are questions aren't ty. >> the conversation right now in the movement as far as i've
seen is inward looking. >> the loss of encampments both at zuccoi park and other plac in the country will turn to a more organizational conversation where the questions of if we're going to stay alive we're going to have to do some stuff. if we're gng to do stu, we have to talk about that. all these movements historically want to have debates all day long, they want to sit in the park and have that argument. but again, there are people within this group people, they codn't have accomplished what they've accomplished if there weren't people in fact defacto leaders. people in horizontal structure are the ones actually receiving agendas. >> we should just call them leaders. they hate the word but they distinguish themselves and people recognize them as such. >> they're the people who set agendas and would propose things to do. and then they have to get them ratified by the common. but they were the ones who were like playing things out.
those people are having conversations about what do we need to do to get over the next mile. and those are i think in the large extent they are actually structural organizational questions and there are a lot of debates around. and this is where i think possibly some of the utopians will lose some sway is that the easies way for this to get carried forward is by making common cause with labor unions and what is the traditional activist left. and those peopleanted in for a while and they've gotten their toes in and these some skepticism about them in terms of option. do we want to be part of the awe general de. that's the inner movement. the outer vement if you will, the people we recognize as part of the traditional left activist base. those people are already organized and he this can create some kind of infrastructure into which some of these energy could flow if the people inside the ener would allow this to happen. >> --
>> charlie: you could answer this, how does the obama administration and the obama campaign see this at this moment? >> i think they have been -- >> charlie: you hope or fear. >> little bit of both. we've seen the president kind of embrace the movement and keep a little bit of distance because they recognize there's some danger with getting too much associated with this. but i think their clear objective is to the extent this movement h tapped a broader populous sentiment in the country and enliven that sentiment. they can tap into that. that they think they can do and the president must do that, they think. the other part which i think they're a little bit in fantasy land abouts the notion they can and they say occasionally in a little bit stronger way that's channel the energy of the movement. and everybody i asked in this movement what do you think about
barack obama. they disappointed me, he's in the pocket shilz, he might as well b a republican or to use the 1968 analogy, he might be our herbert humphrey. we don'tant any part of obama. >> charlie: none of those se to be a great benefit to barack obama. >> if you think you could channel this movement, it wasn't going to be channeled by barack obama. >> he's a politician. he runs for office. he works within our accepted constitutional system where we get together and vote on things. if people thought they could get the changes they wanted to through the system they wouldn't be camping out all night and march challenge on the streets. this is what pele do when they
want to opt out to the power structure which is the elections because they feel they're not going to get what they want that way. so yes, i don't think the movement, i don't think it's a movement that is going to be willing to be channeled by any candidate no matter how charismatic or articulate within the movement they might appear to be. there is a real taboo on leadership the that i think preclootdz the charismatic individual emerging d agent i'm ne the george mcgovern here, i'm ing to take this scontent and bring it to washington. i don't think it's going to operate. >> charlie: hey don't t in front of it. >> right. >> but it is fascinating. you already see republicans trying to do what nixon did in 68. you see newt gingrich get a job get a bath. herman cain, this is all a front for obama. eric kantor calling them mobs. the republican mood on this is
reminiscent on this. >> charlie: is that what you mean when you say it could consume the obama campaign. >>t could grow or dissipate. it could hurt him in two different directions in the same way it hurt humphrey. he had his base shattered by the anti-war protesters and then he had the republicans ex exploitig against the backlash coalition. >> charlie: did they think they could split the difference here? >> i don't think they think they have much of a choice but to try. >> yes. it's hard for me to image the situation from their position, you know. the word anarchist is a nuclear word. you can't be with the anarchist and n for president. if he wants to channel, you know, if he wants to channel the movement, that's what the
president would have to do. at the same time if you compare these like quote/unquote self identified anarchists to like labor activists in the 20's, 30's and 40's, they're much more plight. they talk in the shirts and pay taxes scopy bay laws that are generally non-vie 4ru7b9 and usually it's mild disobedience and they do call themselves anarchists and that is problematic. those are the people who are starting it and those are the people who are rung -- running it and come up with the ideas. >> charlie: where do you think the moment is and do you believe it's greater than a 50% chance that something that comes out of this is powerful and a huge force in the politics of america andn the conversation of the world. >> i think almost 100% chance in terms of the politics of america. i mean, in 7 days, the people, the small group of people, they're not 99% of the
pulaon but in a matter of seven days they've taking in equality the elephant in the room, you can't under estimate the amount of positive feedback for the people that have worked on this. i think they're going to be around for a wle and we'll hear a lot more. >> charlie: what's amazing is there was no politician that i know of, knew more than any reporter i know understand the power of narrative and wrote about it and have spoken about it on thisrogram. when obama had it, when the president st it for whatever reason. the power of the narrative of america sitting there for someone to grab. and it's inequity, it's that issue. it's 99 and 1. it is the sense of fairness. it's just there. maybe it is the way things always are. there's not one person who h
come along and grab the narrative and become a voice for something. so therefore the people move in to support tha voice. it is going to percolate up, perhaps with some couple of stimulus and then leadership will come out of it. >> we used have to someone who grabbed that narrative and guided with it and we called him the president. i don't think it's not entirely en or nearly all president obama's fault. i think he inherited a previously diminished presidency after eight years of clinton and then eight years of bush. it's not that peopl trust and look to for leadership the way ople use t >> charlie: because of the experience of the last -- >> 16 years. yes, i woulday. >> i was going to say, it is an amazing thing that, you know, the professor of columbia was the third president talks about and i quote him in my piece
saying that it took three years of the anti-vietnam movement before half of the country was against vietnam. it took them three years. >> charlie: 50% of americans against the war. >> within a month. now you can't credit occupy wall street with this but the truth is in terms of its popular residence. it's like 75% of the people in the country agree that the deck is stacked against them but the very very rich are fed up to win at the expense unfairly at the expense of the rest of us. and that the power of banks and corporations should be rein in. that's not a partisan issue. you're talking about fairness. that is 75% of the country. and it'san amazing thing that this president, who i agree, barack obama had a very difficult hand dealt to him but that argument was not more part of his first three years in
office and that no republican has seized on that. there's no reasonhy republicans, maybe not in ts particular crop of republicans but could ve tried to play into that argument in a powerful way. and it is just sittg there, and a lot of ways occupy wall street, forget about the protesters. that thing has been raised and made centr in a way that it's taken i think a lot of our politicians and a lot of our politics completely by surprise. >> i do think one difference between 2012 and 1968, and this is not -- >> charlie: when you say 68, there was 68 in france, there was 68 here, there was 68 in chicago. what do we mean. >> i guess the election, the united states election. but also, yes, domestically. >> thanks for clearing that up. one big difference between this and the debates that were going on in the united states in 1968. i don't want to play down the importance of healthcare and fairness too far but the stakes this time are a lot lower.
in 1968 you had a draft and you had the spector of thermal nuclear war with a union. i read one survey that said a majority of college freshman entering universities in the early 60's believe the world will be annihilated in their life times by thermal nuclear war. it's just not quite as hot as that and the stakes are lower and i believe that's one reason it's been able spread so quickly that in many ways the conversati compares to 68 is a lot more civil. >> charlie: there's a column i frequently watch called five myths about something. what is theive myths about occupy. >> it has no message, ithas no leaders. >> charlie: you think it does have a message and it does have leaders. >> it doesn't have demands but it has a message and it has leaders. and those i think are two things -- >> charlie: motivating ideas.
>> it never gets anywhere until it makes amends is not true in my opinion. >> charlie: it's come so far so fast because. >> because it hasn't made demands and because it's forced the political discourse to rerm itself around this amorphous mess. if it had made demands earlier, people say oh tse are the people who want a transaction tax or these are the people who want extended powers from the sec and you pu them in a box in yo op ed page. >> charlie you grew up in the south in the 1960's. >> charlie: i did. >> you rememr when the student movement came to the civil rights movement, what they said was what do we want. freedom. wheno we want it? now. that was the defining channel for the first couple years of the civil rights movement 59, 1961 and 19. there were some brilliant strategists that talked about sequencing and integrating public accommodations, public university. at the beginning the moral force of that was as vague as the
moral force of this argument. it was no mor specific and had no enter demands. that's the rest presence. part of the moral force of that was built on what people at the time said was too vague and it's very much the same this time around. >> to me the question is what do we see when we all emerge from ouleather coats and wool sweaters in the spring. and is this thing, this is a hard thing to do. on one level, getting these parks cleared out, having zuccotti park taken away i think benefits the movement extraordinarily. >> charlie: and is reviewed as a movement. >> they tried to stay there for the winter, the crowds would have dwindled and people would have gotten hypo therm ma. they have good work to do. if they can hibernate instead of wither and die in the winter, i
they can hibernate and get their resources regrouped and come out with something big and something dramatic in march or april. if that happens and it really, whether it's in a bunch of different cities or just in one place but in some way they announced that we are back and we're stronger than we were before. we're looking at an interesting year in2012. if that doesn happen then we'll know that this really was just the moment and never made the transition. >> charlie: you believe it's likely that will be the result. >> look, i think the underlying issue here is the econo of the united states -- look if i thought the economy was about to boom, i would have a whole different view of this. there's nothing about the macro economy that suggests to me the basic conditions that allowed this, the structural conditions and the cyclical conditions that allowed this to arrive, those are not going to change. there's outrage that ran left. >> i think john is stopping into one of the great advantages of this leaderless horizontal model. if some guy comes along and says
occupation is over now we're hot air balloons for equality and everyones buys hot air balloons. if that's a good idea, then hot air balloons.com will be a new thing and we won't be talking abt anarchists anymore or ts guy from wisconsin. because no one had a monopoly on the movement's legitimacy anyone can palm up and give you the action. if enough people get behind them then they get a wider media recognition position saying you're the guy now. so far that's really been a disadvantage because these conversations as john has said get really bogged down and well who are we and what are we all doing here a how can weake a decision. i think over the winter into the spring, it could prove to be an advantage. >> charlie: thank you, great to see you. a pleasure. >> charlie: marc benioff is here. he's the cofounder and ceo of
sales force.com. the company expanded itsore offering to include aspects of social networking by neared by the likes of facebook and twitter. i'm very pleased to have marc benioff back to this table for the first time. welcome. >> very fun to be here >> charlie: how is your friend neil ung doing. >> he's working on a car wanting it to be gas free. i don't know if he'll get that you're. he's an amazing person because he's been an incredible entertainer for 40 years but he has this incredible passion for technology that just sucks me in. >> charlie: how long have you known him. >> i've known him now for about four or five years. and it's been, i'll tell you why it's impacted me so much. one is the connection on
technology but two is i am really attracted for people who have been able to do things for multiple decades. 40 years sing the same song and i was just here in new york and i went to his concert and when he was singing old man, i really felt like i was there in 1971 or 1972, do you know at i mean. you see that with certain people and i'm trying to learn from people like that. there are lots to learn from people who can do the same thing for so many years. >> charlie: let's talk about you. salesforce is what, kind kind of company is it i. >> the pioneered the cloud is like amazon e-bay or google. this is using those exact same technologies but to run your business and businees up to this point really have had to buy their own software and build their own data centers and hook it l up themselves. and our message is very simple. hey if you ca buy a book on amazon, if you can do an action
on e-bay, if you can doing a search on google, you can run your business the same way. go right ahead. >> charlie: where did ts come from for you. >> this idea came from the rly 90's when we were working on something called the information super highway. everyone was so excited you probably remember interactive tv was the teacher. even when bill gates wrote that book. the information super highway and interactive tb. of course everybody was wrong. and even him. and what happened was mark dreeson, it owned the door because everything became a commodity. the browser was a commodity the netwking technology was a commodityity andthe backhand services were commodities really for the first time. and at that point you could see the software couldalso become a commodity. and behold the consumer internet boom. but then businesses really can benefit from this as well. if you can build amazon, which
is very sophisticated application, you can have the most sophisticated business software with features and functions. >> charlie: you've been against this campaign of software. that's been the picture for 13 years. the logo software, we've got a sign through it and protesting against the softwe people. charlie what we're trying to do is to make a case. and the case is that we can dramatically lower the cost of business and the way to dramatically lower the cost of business is by dramatically loring the costf i.t. all we do is follow around all these smart young guys, gee basos, mark zuckerberg. we see twitter, facebook, a million people know how to use
this app and they don't have to read a manu. >> charlie: you bring social network to business. >> it's kind of like this. i look at facebook which is truly a killer app. you have billion people on it. they create photos. why can't we do that in business. why do i know more about strangers on facebook than i know about my own employees or my own family. it's really because it's this metaphor is so powerful and i think that we can use that to make business better. and that's really the passion that we're on. >> charlie: give me an example what you'll do for one firm because of what sales force knows about social networking on facebook. >> weave more than 100,000 companies on something called sales force chat. >> charlie: it's like twitr. >> yes, are it is. it's exactly the same thing but it's secure and private. and you know how twitter and facebook are open and they have privacy issues. it's for your company and only
your company sees it. we have a feature where you can open the door and do asking with the customer. it's something the bank cans can use it's somethi that media companies can use. d their employees have already been trained. they don't have to go to a class. they use facebook at home. they use google at home. they use amazon at home. they don't have to reinvent the wheel. >> charlie: you keep using a billion. i st did an interview with marc and they don't have that kind of business yet jeurgs -- >> by the time it's over, it's a phenomena. >> charlie: it's the most powerf company in the world. >> it's billion. it's incredible. >> charlie: is it becoming the most powerful company in the world this. >> no. >> charlie: okay. >>hat idea -- >> charlie: a billion. it's t third largest country in the world. >> here's the thing. that idea of a tech company is so powerful it's going to control everything. nd of came out of ibm when they kind of controlled everything and innovation. they went after everybody and tried to stop it for while.
microsoft kind of mirrored ibm. but the internet has changed everything and since the internet not even the evil empire microsoft has been able to control everything even if they tried. because it's a new world. >> charlie: what happened to microsoft? do you think it's really over for microsoft. >> i don't think it's over for them. >> charlie: almost as much. >> they haven't really let us in the last 10 or 20 years like they did in the first 10 or 20 years. >> charlie: what happened this. >> well, to kind of prepare for this interview i went back and watched your interview with bill gates which was in 1995 or 96. i went back to that one. it's really the 701 where we're talking about the booknd his vision and all these things. i think at the e of the day, their issue was they held on to something called windows everywhere too long. even steve jobs knew th mcintosh could not be the ipopped and the iphon could almost be the ipad but wasn't. he was able to let it go.
he was able to have -- >> charlie: to be able todo what. >> to have a beginner's mind. in the buddhism there's concept of the beginner's mind. u're starting everything from the beginning. when steve jobs looked at a product he would always see it from the beginning. i think the problem is bill gates always tried to find a continuum from windows, do you know what i mean. so it went from windows on your pc to win toes on your phone to windows on your tablet. the thing is windows on the pc did not look so good on the funny, right, you probably saw they have no mart share. and then it didn't look very good on the tablet either. they also had a market share and at was not the right way to build that device. even in music where they tried to makeomething called the zune whicho longer exists. it was the same thing. and that is i think the fundamental mistake. >> charlie: you got to start new. >> you have toave a beginner's mind. you have to look at it and take that breath and start and say
what d i really want. what am i trying to create. >> charlie: why did forbes say your company was the most innovative company of the year >> i don't know. i mean, i don't know what journalists give anybody any particular title. we've had very good success in the last 13 years. and i think that what we try to do is constantly recreate ourself. we're consntly trying to ange ourself i of course, i consider myself a student of steve jobs. i worked for him in 1984 at apple. i was in mcintosh division writing assemblage writing code. >> charlie: you wrote code you didn't write software. >> i wrote code. i like software but i really want software to be delivered differently. i want it to be, i want it to be expressed in a different way. and i think that that idea is very powerful. the thing is that's interesting is if you n't introduce an idea like that in our industry, okay, then the industry never changes. and that's what happens to so many of these tech companies. that's microsoft, righ it's like the same thing goes
and all of a sudden you go gee that's a really old shoe i need a ne shoe. >> charlie: today this observation being made by many people. there are four platforms, you know them, amazon, apple, faceok, google. they are off to the races and the race is between facebook and google. assess that for me. >> well, i think -- >> charlie: or devalidate it. >> i think that there are a lot of new platforms and they're all very exciting. certainly facebook is exciting as a platform. it's one of the most exciting new platforms. i think you got these new visionaries. i think that's a lot more exciting. we have a great new visionary with mark zuckerberg is so exciting and we have jeff -- >> charlie: it continues to be amazing. >> recreated himself. >> charlie: exactly. >> that when you see the real
genius in our industry. do you know what, isn't that the whole symmetry of our industry that it keeps burking o like that and that is the way it should be. when i get upset is when i see someone hammering it. >> charlie: is there a race between google and facebook which is the cover story of fortune magane. i don't think s i think that's sensationalist. >> charlie: that's competition and no borders between them. google has google plus. >> and there are a lot of competitors coming u there are no boundaries today just likeou said and you're going to see new competitors and new entrepreneurs. the most exciting thing that's happened in our industry is the youth. there are all these young entrepreneurs coming up.
we add another one, jack dorsi with twitter. coming up underneath them is a whole bunch of young kids. i just did an april credible thing. i have to tell you this one thing. i took a day off and i went to this program for young ceo's. maybe there's going to be 40 of them there. there were like 400 kids there. they were all between on 20 and 30 years old. this was at the palace of fine arts in savin fran being led by a guy named ron conway. he's like the god father of angel investments. all these kids. >> charlie: they come and figure out how they can get honey and try to get attention. >> they are. and -- >> charlie: it's not a lot of money either. >> it's not a lot of money to start a company today. that's another key fact. and pa graham is another awe phasing person on the show. here's the thing that's exciting about him. he has got a whole new model forgetting companies going faster than ever. and empowering these youth and
educating them. when you're in the seminar you look at people like ron and paul who are up there and you go wow, this is new, actually. you did not have thi kind of educion happening. you did not have this caring. they are like yourrandfather saying we are going to help you. we're going to, here's $500, here you go. do you know what, that is new. and that is fantastic. we never had that in our industry. >> charlie: you take advantage by that meaning can you mobilize it and use it and give it an opportunity to flourish within the confines of salesforce.com. >> that's the reason we invest in platforms ourselves. we have a come platforms, one i call force.com. we're trying to create platforms to inspire these entrepreneurs to build on. we want to be one of those players on the enterprise side. >> charlie: what's happened between you and your old friend larry ellison.
>> he's an amazing. he's my mentor. >> charlie: you work for him. >> he's taught me everything. he's one of most incredible people i've ever met. >> charlie: he was speaking and he tweeted something he didn't like and he canceled you and youpaid a million dollars. >> he can be competitive. he's known for that. >> charlie: why would you tweet something about him knowing you're about to speak at his conference. >> as my mother said, itas not one of my better moods, charlie. what can i say. it turned out to be very good from the pr standpoint. >> charlie: you got a lot of attention for that. >> we actually use the social media to do a kin of bit of move and get far more attention in our menial out tre and a far more prominent way. >> charlie: what do yo think of reid hoffman. >> i think tre's god father of angels, ron conway, reid hoffman is the god father of social. all things social are leading him. he has huge vision.
>> charlie: what does that mean all things social leading to him. >> you talk to the social entrepreneurs like mark zuckerberg or mark pinkus at zynga. reid holds part of the vision for social in the industry. you look for these people as our industry matures, these people, these kind of fathers of the industry also emerge. steve jobs was the father of the pc, you know. now with social, you have new fathers. >> charlie: have they replaced the pc in your judgment. >> i think so. >> charlie: what do people in the pc business do. >> make tablets. >> charlie: nobody's made a tab will you tell that can challenge that. >> it's only been months. that's the cool thing about ipad. i do seminars all over the world. we're doing a seminar on wednesday, 10,000 people in new york.
i would say how many have an ipad. half the hands will go up. th computer's been arnd for 18 months. do you know how long it took to get a pc to that level or lapto to that level or a music player at that level. things are going faster than ever before. this is another tng that we have to pay attention to. there's a level of speed that we are not used to. there's a level of openness and transparency that we're not used to. that's another amazing thing that's going on. that's all about occupy, right. there's a transparency that is kind of, it's a thirst for transparency. and i think organizions, individual governments who don't move more rapidly to that seat, to the transparency to the collaboration we're talking about with face book, they're going to get wrapped rapidly obsoleted by the constitch wednesday they're supporting. >> charlie: the 150 wherever it is and you don't really care because you've come to philanthropy. you have a one one one rule.
do you still have that. >> yes. when we started the company we took 1% our of our techity and 1% of profit and 1% of charity time. it was easy because we had no time, profit or equity. it's turned out our company is worth tens of billions of dollars and we have 7,000 employees and we, you know, we have actual product that we can deliver to customers. >> charlie: -- impact. >> we run 12,000 non-profits fo free. we do not charge non-profits for service, we do not charge university for our services. we will deliver hundredsof thousands of hours of community service. we do, we've given away from the corporate foundation about 25 or $30 million. and also peonal i'm very interested in philanthropy. i just gave $100 million to the university of california san francisco to build a new children's hospital. >> charlie: what will it be called. >> it will be called the benoiff children's hospital.
when i started this, i didn't want to have my name on anything and it has not been on anything. but ucsf came and he this made a pitch to me that i bought rightly or wrongly. they said if you do this all these young people you're inspiring and you're around and you're doing entrepreneurial work with, maybe they will recognize that they need to do something also. we actually have that great success with ggle. google cied our one one one model exactly. and others have too and that's been probably our most successful part of our business. far more thaour business success has been our ability to inspire others to do philanthropy which has been a huge missing part of silicon valley. >> charlie: tell me about factors anwhat part of your life has influenced you. for example you went to india. >> india has been a huge part of my life. >> charlie: what happened over there that influenced you. >> well i think that you see a whole fferent philosophy and a fferent culture. more of an inside out view of the world. you may attention more to what's going o it's exactly what happened to us, me and you two years ago where i came up to you
and i said you did that interview with neal young and i've known him for four or five years and i never heard him say anything like that i went to neal and said i never heard you say that. and he said i never said those things before. you have to listen inside. that's india. i think it's one of the most interesting things is that it's more inside out and i think that steve jobs, you read the biography by walter isaacson. he had a fascination with that. he went at an early age to india and inspired me slightly in a different way. >> charlie: was there one person who had an impact on your life. >> i don't think itas one. i was fortunate enough to meet what i call gurus. i put neal young in there, dali
llama. i tried to learn from them and i still needhese amazing people. and the thing is, i identify them when you see someone who has been doing that thing, t same thing as a master for 10, 20, 30, 40 years. that'sarry olson, on years of the same thing and neal young, 40 years of the same thing. how do you do that. and also mastery. and their consistency. >> charlie: your core competence is what? i'll give you one example. you absorb them and figure out how to assimilate that's productive for you or your company or your life. >> i think that's one of the most important things that you can do in your life is to do exactly what you said which is to wake up every day and to
listen and to pay atteion to what is going on. because if you can do that, then you can constantly create a life exactly as you want it. and we don't get, we don't necessarily learn that in college, you know. but i think that when you listen to these, the gurus that i said and i gave you a wide spectrum, using neal young and -- american businesses need to do more than money. they need to do good in the world and mentoring and all these thgs. i came back and talked to larry and said we should be doi one of these foundations too.
he okay. when i got up to the schools to hook up the computers and wire everything together and make everything happen. i would show up, t employees that worked directly for me would show up but the rest of the company would not show up because it was not what we call in the business cultul. i decided when i started a company i would make it dierent. not just the new technology model but a new philanthropic. nobody had done it very well. i think it's quiteasy. these companies have huge assets but the awe -- assets are not the dollars it's the relations they have, the human resources.
when i was 40, 50, 6 -- i was in my 30's. i'm not going to wake up when i'm 60 or 70 and say now i'm going to give away half my money and sign the giving plement. no, it's wrong. if now is not the time to do it. when are you going to do it. you have togive away your money now. you have to use your company to make the world better now. you have to do those things now. if you don't do it, when are you going to do it. >> charlie: what do you think about the growing protest called 99 and 1 as you know? 99% of the population against the 1%. >> i think it's a perfect mirror of the technology. i think it's the technology that has created it. you look at wale goland who is the egyptian. google employ and werth say egyptians come home and they did. you go to knee -- to -- that dt
exist. you can see in lot of middle east countries and a lot of situations you go on the internet and see this but the science that says this it's amazing. >> charlie: have you compared corporate or are you doing now. >> that's what's creating this problem. to understand occupy you have to understand facebook, twitter, the tablet, the phone, the cloud. >> chaie: got it. but to tell them to understand them tells you what. >>t tells you what's real happening. >> charlie: people are communicating faster. >> they can go faster. it's all transparent. you want to know what's happening in occupy oakland. i follow them on twitter. you can see exactly what's going happen. you see how it's all collaborating. they get tremendous focus on these individuals.
individuals are much more powerful than ever before. whale goland, molly -- who brought down bank of america. she's a 22 year old nanny. she brought down the bank of america. she destroyed a $5 billion product line for them. you saw what happened to net flicks even. they had a price increase and the users revoaltd. >> charlie: they haven't recovered yet have they. >> they have not recovered. >> charlie: they were down last week. >> what happens is you're able to get alignment and the last thing that's fascinating is and tom friedman amplified this for me, leaderless. these are leaderless organizions. there is no leader of occupy. now occupy came out of ad busters. it was ad busters a canadian foundation who scale up th this photo they had the price tag on the bottom occupy wall stet and call for this kind of protest but then it just took off. in that idea i call that social.
i have thisind of acronym. social which is speed open collaborative individuals alignment leaderss. because that's how i -- >> leadership. >> leadership or leaderless. i think now we have a new type of leadership and so that's how i'm trying to frame it, and when i talk to our customers, when i do these programs, i said hey the world has changed. it's a social revolution and that's not just about facebook look out your window. my office in san francisco at 1 market street that is where occupy san francisco is. we built these beautiful new -- you woul love them, charlie. gorgeous, people could call and play botchy ball all over san francisco. it is a huge tent city right outside our window and every day i look outside and go it's a social revolution and when i'm on facebook i said it's asocial revolution, i'm on twitter it's a social revolution and i see it exactly that way and i see technology's a mirror of society itself. and i think that that can be a catalyst for us to create a new
type of society. i asked myself why can't the government have an api. sit sum privacy is critical. yes. national defense is critical but there are a lot of things in our government that should be open to us. if it's a government that is for the people and by the people, then why can i not get the information d see it, make it better and i think an api into the government is very much what we need and i think that kind of concept of social needs to be applied to our government and our companies. >> charlie: whoo you want to see as the next president. >> i am not sure yet. i, you know, i have supported barack obama in the past. i have vacillated between being and republican or democrat. i'm not a republican or democrat i'm an american and that's how i view it. that's how i view it and until i see the top ones appear, i can't
make a decision. if you vote a party lines it's more of this paralysis we have in our country. >> charlie: where will i find salesforce in ten years. >> i think we will continue to lead this our own revolution of all this young entrepreneurs to ow them how to be great business executives and show them how to tple down the microsoft oracles and sat and those old business models and give them all the power we talked about here in the social revolution. that's what we want to do. >> charlie: listen to this song as we go out. thank you very much. great to see you. >> thas very much.